Canadian and American politics

I am distressed about the fact that Stephen Harper wants to call an election. First he wants to meet all opposition leaders. Sadly Stephane Dion has failed to make an appointment with Harper for earlier than September 9 despite the fact that Harper has rejected September 9 as too late a date. If Dion wants an election all he has to do is refuse to meet with Harper before September 9. But if he wanted to try to avert an election he could take time out of his schedule to meet Harper before then. I am unhappy that Dion has not tried harder to find a mutually acceptable meeting time with Harper. If Harper called an election next week all the by-elections would be cancelled and I am very unhappy about that. Recently Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe found time in his schedule to meet Harper on Friday and NDP leader Jack Layton has agreed to meet Harper on Saturday. So why can’t Dion take time out of his schedule and meet with Harper soon like the other opposition party leaders have done?


In the US, I’d say Joe Biden was a fairly good choice for vice president by Barack Obama. I thought his recent speech at the Democratic National Convention was great. His only disadvantage is that he is from an existing blue state, Delaware, and therefore his presence on the ticket will not have a chance to bring in a red state. Biden is simultaneously seeking re-election to the US Senate. If Obama wins, Biden has to resign. If he resigns prior to the start of the new Congress, he will have to resign twice – resign his existing term and decline to serve the new term. Delaware has a Democratic governor who is term limited. Most likely a Democrat will win the gubernatorial election. But even if a Republican wins the gubernatorial election, Biden has plenty of time to resign and allow the existing Democratic governor to appoint a Democratic successor to the Senate before the new governor takes office.

Wawa

As I write this I am staying at a motel in Wawa, Ontario. Wawa is in the federal electoral district of Algoma–Manitoulin–Kapuskasing. The results from the last federal election for this riding were as follows. Liberal: 38% , NDP: 34% , Conservative: 23%. The NDP almost won last time which was surprising considering the district’s strong Liberal history – decades and decades of continuous Liberal representation. In fact former Prime Minister Lester Pearson once represented part of this riding in the House of Commons. But a small swing between the Liberals and NDP in the last election and this would be an NDP riding. This should not be overly shocking considering the provincial NDP history that much of this riding had prior to 1999. A large portion of the riding was the Algoma riding that was represented by Bud Wildman all the way from 1975 to 1999. Ontario’s far North sent representatives from Ontario’s Progressive Conservative Party. The Red Tory machine at the time had strength in Northern Ontario. This means that prior to 1987, the old Algoma–Manitoulin riding was represented by a Tory. But because the modern district had a large portion of it represented by Bud Wildman, we can see that this riding does have NDP history. In addition, the current Algoma–Manitoulin district was certainly NDP popular vote-wise in 1990. Northern Ontario uses different boundaries for the provincial legislature than the federal boundaries. So the provincial counterpart to Algoma–Manitoulin–Kapuskasing is simply called Algoma–Manitoulin. It is a little bit smaller in size and population than the federal counterpart. Nevertheless the results for the provincial riding were similarly close in the last provincial election. The Liberals got 42.6%, the NDP got 36.9%, and the PCs got 14%. This was quite a bit closer than the 2003 results for the riding with the exact same boundaries. The NDP vote jumped several points and the Liberal vote dropped several points. Algoma–Manitoulin is represented in the Ontario Legislature by Liberal Mike Brown. Mike Brown has represented a riding called Algoma–Manitoulin since 1987, although prior to 1999 his district was much smaller in size and population. Mike Brown was Speaker of the Ontario Legislature from 2005 to 2007. During the provincial election Brown was the incumbent Speaker and therefore it is hard to say if Brown got any extra votes because he was Speaker. If Brown had not been Speaker at the time the race between the Liberals and the NDP may have been even closer. Algoma–Manitoulin–Kapuskasing’s federal MP is Liberal Brent St. Denis. St. Denis has been an MP since 1993 and is certainly a native son for the riding – he was born in Blind River (within the riding) and has many community roots in the riding. However the NDP is gunning for his seat. The same NDP candidate as 2004 and 2006, Carol Hughes, has been renominated for the NDP and this time Hughes hopes to close the narrow gap and win the seat. I do not want to see this happen because this would involve knocking off St. Denis – a progressive, pro-gay marriage Liberal. The NDP did very well in the riding last time, even before much of the economic hardship that this riding experienced had hit. In the next federal election a major question that should determine the outcome of this riding would be whether voters in this riding would blame the incumbent party in their riding (the Liberals) or the incumbent government (the Conservatives) for the economic hardships that these Algoma–Manitoulin–Kapuskasing voters have experienced. If they blame the Conservative government, then St. Denis has more of an advantage. If they blame the Liberals, NDP candidate Carol Hughes would have a significant advantage. The interesting thing about this riding is that this is quite a left-wing riding despite it being a very rural riding. This is in contrast to Saskatchewan, where rural areas are strongly Conservative. This is also in contrast generally to many rural places in several different provinces in Canada. The reason for this discrepancy applies more generally to all rural Northern Ontario ridings with the exception of the more well-off regions of Muskoka, Parry Sound, and Nipissing. Outside those 3 regions, rural Northern Ontario tends to be more economically disadvantaged. Economically disadvantaged voters tend to vote more left-wing. This is why we see several left-wing ridings in Northern Ontario that are rural. More specifically, it can be said in general that people in these economically disadvantaged rural areas of Northern Ontario experience lower paying jobs, less job security, and higher unemployment. These things are key factors that make voters vote more left-wing. In many cases, such conditions cause voters to opt for the NDP, thus explaining the high NDP numbers in the economically disadvantaged rural Northern Ontario ridings. This phenomenon explains the left-wing nature of Algoma–Manitoulin–Kapuskasing and establishes the general fact that rural in Northern Ontario means quite different things than rural in many other parts of the country.

I want to make one additional note about the fact that the Ontario PCs used to routinely win many seats in Northern Ontario prior to 1987. In the 1987 election, most vestiges of the Northern Big Blue Machine disappeared. However, the Tories still managed to win 3 seats in Northern Ontario – Nipissing, Parry Sound, and Cochrane South. Based on political history, Nipissing and Parry Sound are not shocker wins for the Tories in 1987. However, the 1987 Tory win in Timmins-based Cochrane South seems strange from a modern prospective considering the fact that the area covering Cochrane South is reliably left-wing as evidenced in recent elections. The explanation for the anomaly comes from the personal popularity of the 1987 Tory candidate, incumbent Alan Pope. Pope was a Red Tory and the final Tory holdout in Northern Ontario outside Muskoka, Parry Sound and Nipissing. Pope did not run again in 1990. However, he won his seat in 1987 fairly easily. The Tories were in fact drifting to the right at that time regardless of Pope’s own views but this drift to the right had not yet registered in the Timmins area. When Pope retired in 1990 his seat went NDP as part of the NDP wave and the Timmins area has been represented by the NDP provincially ever since. But due to the slightly odd circumstances of the 1987 Cochrane South election, Cochrane South has the distinction of being the only riding in all of Ontario to elect a Tory in 1987 but to not do so in 1995. Similarly, Cochrane South was the only 1987 PC riding to go NDP in 1995. I will be heading to Timmins next and I will survey Timmins more at that time.

Manitoba

I’m in Manitoba as I type this. I am on a road trip to Winnipeg but now I am headed out of Manitoba. The people who live in Winnipeg seem quite a bit happier than those in Toronto. It could be culture, it could be a smaller city thing, or it could be the economy – the economy in Winnipeg is doing much better than the economy in Toronto. I’m a Liberal but I was exited about entering a province that has an NDP government for the first time since Ontario had an NDP government. Manitoba only has two Liberal MLAs – Liberal leader Jon Gerrard and Kevin Lamoureux. Unfortunately, I was unable to meet with Kevin Lamoureux as I had originally hoped. Kevin Lamoureux hangs out at a McDonald’s in Winnipeg every Thursday evening and invites his constituents to come to the McDonald’s at this time in order to talk to him. Sadly I could not be in Winnipeg on a Thursday. Today I got a tour of the Manitoba legislature building. Unfortunately the actual legislative chamber was unavailable to be toured because it is being used for some sort of conference. Regardless, eventually the tour guide discussed the Manitoba government. She said that there are 57 seats in the legislature. The New Democratic Party, she said, has 36 seats. The Progressive Conservatives, she said, have 19 seats. The Liberals, she said, have 2 seats. It is also true that the federal Liberals have only 3 seats in all of Manitoba – Anita Neville in Winnipeg South Centre, Raymond Simard in Saint Boniface, and Tina Kepper in Churchill. The two Liberal seats in the Manitoba legislature are safe Liberal seats so long as the incumbents run for re-election. Jon Gerrard represents the River Heights riding and Kevin Lamoureux represents the Inkster riding. Both ridings are in Winnipeg. If Gerrard didn’t run, River Heights would easily go Tory. If Lamoureux didn’t run, Inkster would easily go NDP. The two Liberal seats in the provincial legislature are safe only so long as the incumbents run. At the federal level, there are sadly no safe federal Liberal seats in Manitoba. Saint Boniface was shockingly close last time. The Tory candidate got an astonishing 35%, and Simard won by only 3 and a half percent. Winnipeg South Centre was also surprisingly close last time – Neville won by only 7 percent. The Liberals in the Winnipeg South Centre and Saint Boniface both had 39% of the vote. Former Winnipeg South MP Reg Alcock lost his seat last time by 111 votes in a shocking upset. Alcock lost to a very right-wing Tory – Rod Bruinooge. Now ironically the strongest Liberal riding in Manitoba, based on the last election, is the Churchill riding. In the Churchill riding, the Liberals got a little over 40% of the vote, higher than the 39% from the other two Liberal ridings in Manitoba. The Liberals won Churchill in the last election by 12%, higher than the Liberal margin of victory in either Saint Boniface or Winnipeg South Centre. But when one considers the fact that former Churchill MP Bev Desjarlais is not expected to run again in Churchill, one realizes that Churchill is not a safe Liberal seat. This is because last time former New Democrat Bev Desjarlais ran as Independent after having failed to be renominated for the New Democrats the previous October. Desjarlais was a socially conservative New Democrat who defied the NDP party whip to vote against the same-sex marriage bill. This disobedience of the whip caused Desjarlais to be immediately stripped of all her critic responsibilities. A few months later she lost the NDP nomination to a 22-year-old woman –Niki Ashton. Some argue that this was not a coincidence. When Conservatives have criticized the NDP over same-sex marriage they have incorrectly stated that Desjarlais was kicked out of caucus for voting against the same-sex marriage bill. What actually happened was that Desjarlais was allowed to stay in caucus after the final same-sex marriage bill vote but voluntarily left caucus after losing the nomination a few months later in October of that year. She could have chosen to remain in caucus but did not because she decided to run for re-election as an Independent rather than standing down after her nomination defeat. In the ensuing election, received about 17% of the vote, splitting votes mostly with the New Democrats but seemingly also split some votes with the Conservatives due to her social conservative stance. This Conservative vote splitting is evident in that the Conservative vote in Churchill actually dropped several percentage points from the 2004 election results. Add some of Desjarlais’ vote to the Conservative total, add the rest to the NDP, and Churchill becomes too close to call between the Liberals and New Democrats. Niki Ashton has been renominated for the NDP and is fighting hard to become an MP. Ashton is the daughter of Manitoba NDP cabinet minister Steve Ashton. So based on how close Churchill is without Desjarlais running as an Independent, it becomes obvious that unfortunately there are no safe seats for the federal Liberals in Manitoba. However the situation in Manitoba is not as bad for non-Tories as it is in Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan, all federal riding boundaries are drawn so that it is exceedingly difficult for a non-Tory to be elected. The only non-Tory to have managed this feat with any sort of ease in recent elections is Liberal Ralph Goodale. Sadly if Goodale retired, the Tories could easily end up winning all 14 federal Saskatchewan ridings – potentially with less than 50% of the Saskatchewan-wide vote! The federal Saskatchewan ridings are gerrymandered that badly. There is something about Saskatchewan’s population distribution that apparently makes it impossible to draw 100% urban federal ridings in Saskatchewan’s two major cities of Regina and Saskatoon. Instead the federally-controlled Saskatchewan electoral districts commission has been recently drawing Saskatchewan ridings that are about half urban and half rural. There are 8 such ridings in Saskatchewan, 4 for Regina and 4 for Saskatoon. Regina is divided into four and Saskatoon is divided into four. At least half the population of each of these 8 ridings is rural in nature. This disenfranchises the urban voters in Regina and Saskatoon. I believe that wherever possible districts should either be 100% urban or 100% rural. I am against mixing urban and rural areas into a single riding if it can be avoided. This is because like it or not, urban voters and rural voters vote very differently. Ballot box issues for urban voters also tend to be starkly different than ballot box issues for rural voters. Therefore urban areas and rural areas should kept in separate ridings wherever possible. But because this rule is ignored in Saskatchewan, rural Conservative votes plus vote splitting between the Liberals and NDP ensures that a Tory is elected every time in each of the 8 mixed urban-rural federal Saskatchewan ridings with the exception of Ralph Goodale’s Wascana riding. Wascana covers a rural area and part of Regina. Without Goodale this is not a safe Liberal riding. This is illustrated by the fact that in 2000 Goodale himself came close to losing to the Canadian Alliance candidate.

Manitoba also has 3 NDP MPs – Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre), Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North), Bill Blaikie (Elmwood Transcona). Aside from the 3 Liberals, the rest of Manitoba is represented by Tories – eight Tory MPs including three within the city of Winnipeg. Manitoba Tory MPs tend not to be as homophobic as Saskatchewan Tory MPs are. Nevertheless Manitoba Tory MPs are all socially conservative. But as I say the Tory MPs from Manitoba are usually not as socially conservative as Tory MPs from Saskatchewan. To give one example, thanks to the split urban-rural federal ridings of Saskatchewan urban residents in part of Saskatoon are stuck with the extremely socially conservative MP Maurice Vellacott who has made some rather anti-gay comments and has remained incredibly hostile to any LGBT rights.




Manitoba is the only prairie province where the federal NDP holds any seats. What’s more, all the prairie federal NDP seats are in inner city Winnipeg. Since the loss of Churchill, the federal NDP has held no rural prairie seats. In other words the traditional rural prairie base of the federal NDP is largely gone. The rural NDP base for the provincial Manitoba NDP is also relatively weak outside Northern Manitoba. Similarly, based on the most recent Saskatchewan election, the rural NDP base for the Saskatchewan provincial NDP is gone outside of Northern Saskatchewan. Considering that neither the federal NDP nor the Alberta provincial NDP has EVER had a base in rural Alberta, it becomes obvious that the NDP (both the federal NDP and its prairie province chapters) no longer has its traditional rural prairie base, with the exception of Northern Manitoba and Northern Saskatchewan.

Egmont

I cannot help but say I am disappointed that Bobby Morrissey dropped out as the Liberal candidate in Egmont when Morrissey was such a good candidate and Egmont is such a winnable riding – currently held by the Liberals. Morrissey had defeated former PEI Premier Keith Milligan for the nomination. I do not know whether Milligan will now try for the nomination again. Morrissey was a strong candidate and most likely could have held the seat. His Conservative opponent would have been Gail Shea, a former PEI Tory MLA. She lost her seat in the last PEI election when the provincial Liberals swept the Island. I’ve heard however that now the PEI Liberal government is unpopular in rural PEI. But I have not been able to ascertain why. Supposedly the unpopularity of the PEI Liberal government in rural PEI would catapult Shea to victory. Supposedly strong opposition to Dion’s Green Shift would catapult Shea to victory in Egmont and catapult many other Tory candidates to victory in several Liberal ridings in Atlantic Canada. I do not want to believe this. The Tories claim that Morrissey quit because he thought he would not win the riding due to Dion’s Green Shift. The Liberals deny this and Morrissey denies this. Morrissey is supposed to have found a very promising job in the private sector that made him quit his candidacy. I do not fully understand why he could not have taken this job, then waited for the election and then run. Personally for me, being a Member of Parliament is a much more desirable job than even the most highly paid private sector job. Egmont stayed Liberal in 1984, though it went Tory with David MacDonald (very Red Tory) in the election 1968 through to and including 1979. Liberal George Henderson won it by a wide margin in 1980 and retained it by 918 votes (5% of the vote) in 1984 over the Tories. Joe McGuire won it for the Liberals in 1988 and he has held it ever since. Sadly McGuire announced that he would not run in the next election and that is where we are at now. It is ironic that a seat that stayed Liberal in 1984 is now considered the most winnable riding for the Tories in PEI. There was also a Liberal candidate who just dropped out in the riding of Palliser. However this is not as big a deal as Palliser is not a winnable riding for the Liberals – the Liberals always come in third in Palliser. However, the Liberals need to find a new candidate in Palliser and in Egmont so that the party can be ready when the time comes for an election.

Barrie examiner letter to the editor

I’ve found a good letter to the editor in the Barrie Examiner. It is entitled “Harper's bluff yet to be called”. I like this part. “Since Canadians want another federal election like they want snow in September, there also needs to be an overwhelming issue to send voters to the polls.” I certainly agree with that. There needs to be an overwhelming issue over which to pull the plug otherwise to me doing so seems inadvisable. There is also a Toronto Star article entitled “Bring on fall election, Liberals say”. It quotes Bob Rae and appears to be implying that Rae is saying “bring on a fall election.” Of course I don’t want the Star to put words in Rae’s mouth. What Rae did say is that it is only a matter of time until an election and that the Liberals are increasingly ready for one. The problem with the Liberal Green Shift is that although it is credible and doable, it is polarizing. People either support it or strongly oppose it. There is a sizeable, although minority, population that opposes the Green Shift. Opposition to the Green Shift is heavily concentrated out west, especially in Saskatchewan and Alberta. There is strong opposition in those provinces due to the oil revenue that those two provinces generate due to oil drilling. Of course the Green Shift does not put a tax on petroleum itself. Conservatives still contend that the Green Shift would cause the prices of gasoline to increase. There are genuine fears out west that the Green Shift would devastate the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan. I would like to reassure those who feel that way. I am thoroughly convinced that the Green Shift would either have no effect on the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan or the Green Shift would have a positive effect on the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan. By no means is the Green Shift another National Energy Program as I have seen some contend. The Green Shift is completely different. There is also opposition to the Green Shift in British Columbia where the provincial Liberal government has already implemented a carbon tax. There is strong opposition to the BC government’s carbon tax and as a result there is opposition to the federal Liberal Green Shift. Sadly the Liberals are therefore, I fear, risking the seats they have in British Columbia by promoting a policy that is similar to the provincial carbon tax that British Columbians have already rejected. Thus for all these reasons I am not convinced that the Liberal Green Shift ought to be the overwhelming issue over which the federal Liberals force an election.

The Green Shift will be an integral part of our platform but I firmly believe the Liberals should campaign on other things as well. During an election the Green Shift by no means should be the only thing discussed by the Liberals. There are plenty other issues to promote and plenty of other issues to attack the Conservatives on. Of course we cannot really consider our options on when to force an election until after the by-elections on September 8. If the Liberals, God forbid, get wiped out in the by-elections I am doubtful there would be eagerness on the part of the Liberals to force a quick election. Even if the Liberals lost one of the two seats it held I am doubtful the Liberals would be clamoring to bring down the House. If the Liberals win both, the Liberals can consider their options, part of which should involve weighing the percentage of the vote the Liberals get in each of the three ridings. That being said, I am cautioning against rushing into an election. We need the exact right issue at the exact right time, and I am not convinced we have found those two things yet nor I am I convinced we’d find those two things in the fall. Stephen Harper has talked about making confidence motions in the autumn out of government measures on the economy, crime, and other Conservative policies. It is my guess that the Liberals would look at each of those measures separately and decide individually whether to support or oppose each measure. If an economic proposal put before parliament is not overly radical or nutty, I don’t see why the Liberals wound not support it. Similarly, the Liberals have mostly supported the Conservative crime-fighting agenda. I don’t see this stopping in the fall unless the Conservatives propose something really radical. I do not personally agree with Stephane Dion that Canadians are “hungry for an election”, as one article put it. My party will do what it thinks best on every issue and every vote in the fall. But even when we support certain Conservative measures we will not stop criticizing the government over it’s numerous failures. This is not incompatible. This is what is needed to make a minority parliament work. When the Bloc Quebecois was supporting the Conservatives in confidence votes, the Bloc did not refrain from criticizing the Conservatives at the time. The situation is no different for the Liberals. We will support individual Conservatives proposals as we see fit but we remain the Official Opposition and the role of the Official Opposition is to hold the government to account. We do that by criticizing the many things that this government has done wrong. Anyway, good luck to Frank Valeriote in Guelph, Marc Garneau in Westmount—Ville-Marie, and Roxane Stanners in Saint-Lambert!